50 Victoria Street
Private Bag 6995
Wellington 6141
New Zealand
T 64 4 894 5400
F 64 4 894 6100
www.nzta.govt.nz
6 September 2021
Bevan Woodward
[FYI request #16350 email]
REF: OIA-8631
Dear Bevan
Request made under the Official Information Act 1982
Thank you for your email of 9 August 2021 requesting the following information under the Official
Information Act 1982 (the Act):
1) This Herald article: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-harbour-bridge-can-no-longer-
be-strengthened-traffic-could-be-restricted-says-nzta/5D65SRWXVHIMTRTSEMO2MQFQCI/
states “A November briefing paper to Transport Minister Michael Wood warned the
"loading restrictions" would be needed within the next 20 years”. Please provide:
a. a copy of the November briefing paper to Transport Minister Michael Wood
The November briefing paper referred to is attached as Attachment 1 – BRI-2066 AWHC briefing note.
Certain information has been withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the Act to protect the privacy of natural
persons.
b. a copy of the technical advice to NZTA that advises the AHB cannot be further
strengthened
Section 6.1 of the ‘SkyPath Concept Structural Assessment Technical Report – AHB Alliance (10
December 2014) includes advice on previous strengthening of the extension bridges to their maximum
feasible capacity. A copy of the report is provided as Attachment 2. Certain information has been
withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the Act to protect the privacy of natural persons. Please note the
report is based upon Box Girder Strengthening design completed in 2009.
c. a copy of the most recent load capacity study (draft or finalised) and any peer
reviews prepared for NZTA.
The ‘SkyPath Concept Structural Assessment Technical Report – AHB Alliance’ (10 December 2014)
is the most recent study for the AHB extension bridges’ live load capacity to carry traffic, walking and
cycling loads.
2) Please specify what work NZTA has been had done to determine the actual measured
differential temperature effects on the AHB Box Girders, including;
a. providing a copy of the report on the details of the work and the results
Section 4.3 of the ‘SkyPath Concept Structural Assessment Technical Report – AHB Alliance’
summarises the assessment of temperature effects on the AHB box girders in accordance with Waka
Kotahi NZ Transport Agency standards. This report includes a summary of results from the
assessment in Appendix D.
Points 4 and 5 in the letter ‘AHB SkyPath Concept Structural Assessment Technical Report
Comments – Beca’ (20 April 2015) address the query of measurements of differential temperature on
the AHB, which supported the use of the relevant standards.
b. advising whether such work has been used to update the load capacity studies (in
particular that referred to in 1(c) above) done for NZTA?
No further work has been done to update load capacity studies.
3) At the NZTA Board meeting on 20 August 2018, management advised the SkyPath design
was “a buildable project, which can run in conjunction with vehicles, subject to the need to
control flow.” (See page 14:
http://www.getacross.org.nz/uploads/1/2/2/8/122895821/nzta_board_minutes-
20180820_pg_14.pdf)
a. Please provide the technical reports to support this advice to the NZTA Board.
Section 7.1 of the ‘SkyPath Concept Structural Assessment Technical Report – AHB Alliance’ (10
December 2014) includes a summary of load limits assessed for the proposed SkyPath design.
b. What consideration was given to adopting the AHB strengthening solution prepared
by Holmes Consulting Group in order to remove the requirement for “the need to
control flow” for the SkyPath design?
http://www.getacross.org.nz/uploads/1/2/2/8/122895821/ahb_strengthening_for_nzta
_-_holmes.pdf
‘AHB Cycleway – Holmes Submission’ (8 September 2009) considers the concept by Holmes
Consulting Group in relation to connecting the Auckland Harbour Bridge extension bridges to the truss
bridge.
4) Following the NZTA Board meeting on 20 August 2018, the NZTA chair wrote to the Minister
of Transport advising: “Assuming the detailed business case confirms the economic case,
the Skypath project will be able to proceed to implementation. Once the necessary designs
are complete and consents in place construction can begin." NZTA letter dated 21 August
2018
http://www.getacross.org.nz/uploads/1/2/2/8/122895821/nzta_board_assurance_to_minister
_re_skypath_21_august_2018.pdf. Please advise the course of events and with supporting
documentation and technical reports, including dates of key decisions, to explain why
NZTA chose not to proceed with the SkyPath design.
NZ Transport Agency Board Paper – 5.2 - Auckland Harbour Bridge Walking and Cycling Single Stage
Business Case (18 December 2019) was presented to the Board on 18 December 2019. The
Business Case is provided in Attachment 5.
2
Certain information has been withheld under section 9(2)(j) of the Act to allow Waka Kotahi to carry
on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
Certain information has also been withheld under section 9(2)(g)(i) of the Act which allows for the
withholding of information to maintain the effect conduct of public affairs through free and frank
expression of opinions by or between employees of a public service agency.
The Waka Kotahi Board approved the recommendations made in the Business Case at a meeting on
18 December 2019. The minutes of this meeting can be found on the Waka Kotahi website:
www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/About-us-2/docs/board-meeting-minutes-2019/minutes-20191218.pdf. I am
therefore refusing this aspect of your request in accordance with section 18 (d) of the Act, as the
information is publicly available.
5) NZTA’s HARBOUR BRIDGE SHARED PATH – SSBC (Dated 6 January 2020) states on Page
20 with regards to Option 1: “the Agency’s engineering advice is that the design would
need to be altered to enable delivery of a technically achievable scheme. The extent of the
design changes are likely to be sufficient that variations to the consents would be needed”.
Please provide:
a. details of this engineering advice, including what aspects of the SkyPath design
would need to be altered and why.
b. details of the likely variations to the consents.
c. copies of any technical report(s) relied upon in providing such advice.
The ‘Auckland Harbour Bridge Shard Path Single Stage Business Case’ (6 January 2020) – The
section “Shortlist Evaluation – Option 1: Underslung option (as designed by the SkyPath Trust)” is the
technical report relied upon in providing this advice and details the likely variations to the SkyPath
resource consents.
This report is available on the Waka Kotahi website at: www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/projects/northern-
pathway/docs/AHB-shared-path-SSBC-20200106.pdf. I am therefore refusing your request under
section 18 (d) of the Act because the information you are requesting is publicly available.
6) In terms of assessing the traffic impacts by taking the western-most traffic lane (per Option
3, NZTA’s HARBOUR BRIDGE SHARED PATH – Single stage business case dated 6
January 2020), has (or will) NZTA include modelling which takes into account the effect of
road pricing?
No, road pricing was not taken into account in modelling for the Auckland Harbour Bridge Shard Path
Single Stage Business Case.
7) This media statement from Hon Michael Wood: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-
northern-pathway-gets-green-light states “In the meantime, Waka Kotahi will continue to
work on how to provide safe temporary trials of using lanes on the existing harbour bridge
for cyclists and pedestrians.” OIA-8193 RESPONSE advises "We have discussed a trial
versus regular access on the bridge with the Board who have asked for and extra work
necessary to understand the cost and risks associated with providing access. Any
decision to provide access will be made by the board". Please advise when the NZTA
Board intends making its decision regarding access for pedestrians and cyclists across
the Auckland Harbour Bridge.
3
The Waka Kotahi Board will be presented with the interim findings of pedestrian and cycling access
across the Auckland Harbour Bridge at its meeting in September 2021.
8) On Saturday, May 29 we learnt from Auckland Transport’s that the western clip on lanes of
the AHB would be closed to traffic for the Bike Auckland rally. On Sunday, May 30 NZTA’s
traffic management vehicles were in place ready for the rally. Please advise:
a. Given NZTA had organised to close the western clip-on lanes to traffic on Sunday,
May 30, why did NZTA position their moveable barrier so that of the six remaining
available traffic lanes, only two were northbound?
Waka Kotahi had not planned to close lanes to facilitate the event, the associated planning was in the
form of contingencies to ensure public safety. As such, the moveable lane barrier operations
remained as business as usual (4x4 configuration).
While the option to move the moveable lane barrier during the event was available, an operational
decision was made not to undertake this move, as we had identified that the duration of disruption
(lanes closed) was likely to be in the order of 60 minutes only, which makes movement of the
moveable lane barrier more disruptive than beneficial. In addition, the informal nature of the lane
closures adjacent to the cycle activity we did not want to encourage a high-speed environment to exist
in the adjacent lanes.
b. Please provide a copy of correspondence between NZTA and Auckland Transport
or NZ Police in relation to the traffic management for the Bike Auckland rally on
Sunday, May 30.
This is provided in Attachment 6 – Correspondence. Certain information has been withheld under
section 9(2)(a) of the Act to protect the privacy of natural persons.
With respect to the information that has been withheld, I do not consider there are any other factors
which would render it desirable, in the public interest, to make the information available.
Under section 28 of the Act, you have the right to ask the Ombudsman to review my decision to
withhold this information. The contact details for the Ombudsman can be located at
www.ombudsman.parliament.nz.
If you would like to discuss this reply with the Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, please contact
Ministerial Services by email to [email address].
Yours sincerely
Andrew Thackwray
National Manager Infrastructure Delivery
4
OIA-8631 Document Schedule
Ref
Document
Date
Information being withheld/reason for
withholding
1.
BRI-2066 AWHC briefing
12 November 2020
Personal contact details withheld
note
under s 9(2)(a)
2.
SkyPath Concept Structural
1 December 2014
Names withheld under s 9(2)(a)
Assessment Technical
Report – AHB Alliance
3.
AHB Skypath Concept
20 April 2015
Names and personal contact details
Structural Assessment
withheld under s 9(2)(a)
Technical Report
Comments
4.
AHB Cycleway – Holmes
8 September 2009
Names and personal contact details
Submission
withheld under s 9(2)(a)
5.
NZ Transport Agency Board 18 December 2019
Information withheld under s 9(2)(j), to
Paper – 5.2 – Auckland
allow Waka Kotahi to carry on, without
Harbour Bridge Walking
prejudice or disadvantage,
and Cycling Single Stage
negotiations, and 9(2)(g)(i), to
Business Case
maintain the effect conduct of public
affairs through free and frank
expression of opinions by or between
employees of a public service agency.
6.
Correspondence
Names and personal contact details
withheld under s 9(2)(a)
5
